Banner for Purpose Driven Hypnotherapy (PDHypnotherapy.com)

Articles

« Back to full list of articles

Hypnotherapy - Art or Science?

Of course hypnosis cannot be clearly categorized as either art or science, and most people will agree to some kind of a foothold in both camps. Science has long been a friend although not always intentionally. Much of the early research into trance was, arguably, carried out to debunk it; but, in the modern ‘cognitive’ era, many psychologists have become increasingly interested in mental processes; hypnosis being no exception. Literally masses of evidence has been gathered in support of hypnosis ‘working’ and as therapists we are able to be very clear with our clients about this. When a client tells us that they aren’t sure if they believe in hypnosis, it would almost be correct to reply ‘So, do you doubt the world is round?’ although a less flippant metaphor might be appropriate if rapport is to be built with them. As Richard Gross (1996) comments in his summary of current hypnosis research:

Traditionally [this] topic was something of an embarrassment to psychologists, better left to psychiatrists or parapsychologists, but the high standard of research in this area should place it firmly within mainstream psychology.

So, why isn’t hypnosis embedded in mainstream psychology? Why does it only account for 3 pages of Gross’s 950 page book? One commonly given answer is that Freud and psychoanalysis turned their backs on it (primarily because Freud wasn’t very good at it), but far more importantly it seems that ‘science’ just can’t agree on what it is and how it works. Some theorists such as Hilgard produced amazing evidence for hypnotic pain control and other phenomenon, whereas other theorists such as Wagstaff (1991) have produced equally impressive evidence for hypnosis as a social construct. If science cannot agree what hypnosis is and how it works, then may never have the appeal of processes such as reading and remembering, which can at least be measured in simple ways. By this I mean that we can give someone a list of words to remember and then later test for recall. If no general consensus can be gained into what hypnosis is in the first place, how can we ever truly measure it – and would we actually want to measure it? In many ways, it’s good news that trance is elusive by it’s very nature.

If trance was as transparent and measurable as some physical processes are then wouldn’t science, in theory at least, be able to produce a machine to do the job of you loving Hypnotherapist?

Can you imagine a device that is placed on a client’s head, and a ‘stop smoking’ button, which could be pressed in order to achieve instant scientific success? Puleeeze! Or a computer program, which would cure people of all psychological problems in ten seconds?

Before anyone panics too much, I think Hypnotherapists need to remind ourselves of our artistic status. As artists we use processes which, by definition, science cannot recreate any more than it can measure how good an artist or a work of art is. Quite often, Hypnotherapists remark that their best results are obtained during a particularly creative moment. ‘I didn’t know what I was saying, the words just came out!’ Make no mistake, the kind of flexible ‘utilization’ approach used by many, and the beautiful metaphor scripts or storytelling style often used with clients, would probably not be acceptable in a (sterile) scientific setting. Science produces research which allows us to claim validation for our work, but artistic and humanistic processes can take us to the next level.

In the nineteenth century, mainstream art was faced with just such a ‘head machine’ in the form of photography. Science produced a machine which seemed at first to be able to do something which art had been striving to do for centuries, i.e. to faithfully reproduce reality. It is difficult to overstate the impact photography had on painting at that time, many seeing it as science interfering with art. Some went even further;

‘From today, painting is dead.’ (Paul Delaroche, 1839)

‘This is the end of art, I am glad I have had my day’ (Turner, 1850)

To artists who strove to make scientific representations of reality and saw this as their aim, photography was indeed damaging. To others, though, who saw art as having no ambitions in scientific reality, it was fine. Eugene Delacroix, for instance, felt that science, in the form of photography, could give artists new tools and opportunities without ever threatening what it was that they did.

‘In painting, it is soul which speaks to soul, and not science to science.’ (Delacroix, 1851)

Nowadays it is easy for us to understand that a photograph can have its own artistic value. A photograph can tell a thousand stories, we can even use it as a metaphor in our trancework. We could, for instance, ask a client to recall a happy memory or suggest that they might want to imagine a beautiful photograph and to step inside it in order to feel relaxed. When we use suggestions creatively, we tap into the same processes that are at work, when someone enjoys witnessing a beautiful photograph.

Take the work of Robert Doisneau (1912-1994 ). He took those famous Parisian photographs of couples kissing and similar ‘human’ stories. Now these photographs are not created by a machine that simply points itself at a random scene. They are taken by a person who wants us to ask ourselves certain questions, for example; who are those people? What’s going on? What does this mean to me? In hypnotherapy we also encourage people to ask themselves questions and to use their creative potential.

‘so why not have a construction party?… and build a pretty wall… and a creative wall… and I wonder what colours you’ll use?… what materials you’ll use?… and what does the check-in gate look like?… and how much room is there?… for lots and lots of growth’ (Michael Yapko, 1990)

Ericksonian hypnotists, such as Yapko, come from strong scientific backgrounds but understand, all too well, that the kind of hypnosis used in laboratories will only get us so far in therapy and personal empowerment. Science needs to measure, to describe and to understand – art is about suggestion and creation. Robert Doisneau made a comment on the two processes, which has famously been paraphrased as;

‘To suggest is to create– to describe is to destroy’

It seems to me that this motto goes a long way towards explaining what we do in hypnotherapy and the startling results that we often get.


	Home About William Engle Hypnotherapy By Telephone Energy Therapy (EFT) Newsletters Articles FAQs News & Press Workshops - Register Seminars - Register Contact Us Online Store		Articles « Back to full list of articles Hypnotherapy - Art or Science? Of course hypnosis cannot be clearly categorized as either art or science, and most people will agree to some kind of a foothold in both camps. Science has long been a friend although not always intentionally. Much of the early research into trance was, arguably, carried out to debunk it; but, in the modern ‘cognitive’ era, many psychologists have become increasingly interested in mental processes; hypnosis being no exception. Literally masses of evidence has been gathered in support of hypnosis *‘working’* and as therapists we are able to be very clear with our clients about this. When a client tells us that they aren’t sure if they believe in hypnosis, it would almost be correct to reply ‘So, do you doubt the world is round?’ although a less flippant metaphor might be appropriate if rapport is to be built with them. As Richard Gross (1996) comments in his summary of current hypnosis research: Traditionally [this] topic was something of an embarrassment to psychologists, better left to psychiatrists or parapsychologists, but the high standard of research in this area should place it firmly within mainstream psychology. So, why isn’t hypnosis embedded in mainstream psychology? Why does it only account for 3 pages of Gross’s 950 page book? One commonly given answer is that Freud and psychoanalysis turned their backs on it (primarily because Freud wasn’t very good at it), but far more importantly it seems that ‘science’ just can’t agree on what it is and how it works. Some theorists such as Hilgard produced amazing evidence for hypnotic pain control and other phenomenon, whereas other theorists such as Wagstaff (1991) have produced equally impressive evidence for hypnosis as a social construct. If science cannot agree what hypnosis is and how it works, then may never have the appeal of processes such as reading and remembering, which can at least be measured in simple ways. By this I mean that we can give someone a list of words to remember and then later test for recall. If no general consensus can be gained into what hypnosis is in the first place, how can we ever truly measure it – and would we actually want to measure it? In many ways, it’s good news that trance is elusive by it’s very nature. If trance was as transparent and measurable as some physical processes are then wouldn’t science, in theory at least, be able to produce a machine to do the job of you loving Hypnotherapist? Can you imagine a device that is placed on a client’s head, and a ‘stop smoking’ button, which could be pressed in order to achieve instant scientific success? Puleeeze! Or a computer program, which would cure people of all psychological problems in ten seconds? Before anyone panics too much, I think Hypnotherapists need to remind ourselves of our artistic status. As artists we use processes which, by definition, science cannot recreate any more than it can measure how good an artist or a work of art is. Quite often, Hypnotherapists remark that their best results are obtained during a particularly creative moment. ‘I didn’t know what I was saying, the words just came out!’ Make no mistake, the kind of flexible ‘utilization’ approach used by many, and the beautiful metaphor scripts or storytelling style often used with clients, would probably not be acceptable in a (sterile) scientific setting. Science produces research which allows us to claim validation for our work, but artistic and humanistic processes can take us to the next level. In the nineteenth century, mainstream art was faced with just such a ‘head machine’ in the form of photography. Science produced a machine which seemed at first to be able to do something which art had been striving to do for centuries, i.e. to faithfully reproduce reality. It is difficult to overstate the impact photography had on painting at that time, many seeing it as science interfering with art. Some went even further; ‘From today, painting is dead.’ (Paul Delaroche, 1839) ‘This is the end of art, I am glad I have had my day’ (Turner, 1850) To artists who strove to make scientific representations of reality and saw this as their aim, photography was indeed damaging. To others, though, who saw art as having no ambitions in scientific reality, it was fine. Eugene Delacroix, for instance, felt that science, in the form of photography, could give artists new tools and opportunities without ever threatening what it was that they did. ‘In painting, it is soul which speaks to soul, and not science to science.’ (Delacroix, 1851) Nowadays it is easy for us to understand that a photograph can have its own artistic value. A photograph can tell a thousand stories, we can even use it as a metaphor in our trancework. We could, for instance, ask a client to recall a happy memory or suggest that they might want to imagine a beautiful photograph and to step inside it in order to feel relaxed. When we use suggestions creatively, we tap into the same processes that are at work, when someone enjoys witnessing a beautiful photograph. Take the work of Robert Doisneau (1912-1994 ). He took those famous Parisian photographs of couples kissing and similar ‘human’ stories. Now these photographs are not created by a machine that simply points itself at a random scene. They are taken by a person who wants us to ask ourselves certain questions, for example; who are those people? What’s going on? What does this mean to me? In hypnotherapy we also encourage people to ask themselves questions and to use their creative potential. ‘so why not have a construction party?… and build a pretty wall… and a creative wall… and I wonder what colours you’ll use?… what materials you’ll use?… and what does the check-in gate look like?… and how much room is there?… for lots and lots of growth’ (Michael Yapko, 1990) Ericksonian hypnotists, such as Yapko, come from strong scientific backgrounds but understand, all too well, that the kind of hypnosis used in laboratories will only get us so far in therapy and personal empowerment. Science needs to measure, to describe and to understand – art is about suggestion and creation. Robert Doisneau made a comment on the two processes, which has famously been paraphrased as; ‘To suggest is to create– to describe is to destroy’ It seems to me that this motto goes a long way towards explaining what we do in hypnotherapy and the startling results that we often get.
	© 2010. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED